Emergency portable air devices have been in use for years. Typically, emergency portable air devices are comprised of a conventional, generally large manually hand-operated oxygen tank or tanks strapped to the body, (waist, or back), as in patent numbers: 2002/0153009 A1, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,529,061, 3,491,752, 2002/0148467 A1, U.S. Pat. No. 5,517,984. Some emergency air systems maybe hand-held as well. All of these systems are either 1) Umbilically connected to the mouth via a hose and mouth piece device, or 2) are hand-held, or attached to other apparel. Consequently they are large and cumbersome, and not conducive to being worn without drawing clear and sometimes unwanted attention, unlike this proposed new invention, which is designed to be non-descript and worn as normal apparel, no less than a wrist watch would be.
These large body worn and umbilically mouth piece connected or hand-held devices do sometimes restrict water recreation and water sport activities. They would even be considered dangerous in certain adverse wave turbulence or rocky sea shore bottom conditions or in a river running a kayak near the rocks, or where you need all of your physical mobility, which the prior art devices could in some instances constrain and restrict physical mobility and even further endanger. Therefore they do not provide to a large community of water sport and recreation users the type of air safety devices they could use and are in need of today.
This new device provides for virtually complete physical mobility, unlike other devices, given the structural circumstances of the prior art presented in the previous paragraph. Further this new device is both usable in an attached arm mode held up to the mouth, or is also usable in a detached mode, held only by the mouth, whereby the air regulating system is designed to be controlled with the mouth and the teeth only, if desired.
This new emergency air device addresses the problem for everyone who has ever been caught gasping for air in an underwater or similar air restrictive situation. Most of us have experienced the discomfort and fear when caught under a river current or an oceans wave turbulence, or for that matter caught under the water in a swimming pool for any variety of reasons. This new device provides for the security of mind and critical safety, when engaged in a water activity or any activity that might create a condition whereby your air supply is restricted and you need immediate oxygen relief.
Primarily other prior art emergency air supply devices present themselves both structurally and operationally as to restricting, in size, or method of operation. In some cases other systems could also be unsafe, if surfing or kayaking near rocks that could snare and snag larger profile equipment causing a variety of safety concerns. This new device is designed to ameliorate or eliminate those consequences, and provide the user with a simple apparatus that does not unduly restrict activity, and therefore is easy and safe to use.
The only other device in prior art that I found through a formal patent search was a device that is similar in how it is applied to the mouth for medical purposes (Medication Dispenser) for nicotine or asthmatics, etc.—which is patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,744 B1”. This prior art device is fundamentally distinct from the device I am seeking a patent for—in Structure, Methodology of Use and Functional Purpose. It is similar in that is does not use an umbilical connection, nor is it hand held, and it uses the wrist to attach too.
It is dissimilar in the following:    1. Structurally patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,744 B1” only uses a STRAP to attach to the wrist and to the mechanical apparatus that supplies the aerosol Medication. In contrast—this new device structurally uses the STRAP as the mechanical structure in and of itself, as it houses the air and mechanical mouth regulator, as it wraps around the arm. To have only used the STRAP as an attachment mechanism in this new invention would have made the claims regarding “Non-Descript”, “Non-Obtrusive” and “Not Unduly Restrictive ” to the activity you were engaged in—invalid. This particular prior art device is contrary to those concepts.    2. The Prior Art embodied in patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,744 B1” also could not contain adequate liters of air necessary, as its compartments would be to small, without creating a large—very descript and bulbous mechanism on top of the wrist to manage the air volumes necessary, which is contrary to the safety and design intent embodied in this new invention. The structural design of all prior art in this field does not meet the low profile design and safety elements fashioned into this new design.            Consequently the Structural aspects are distinct opposites, i.e. one attaches the Arm and Aerosol Device to a Strap, and the Other Device is designed within the Strap, which provides additional operational distinctions as well.            3. The Prior Art in patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,744 B1” also does not function as an Air Supply Device; it only functions as a Medical Aerosol device. In all 17 of its claims it only refers to being used for “Aerosols”. This new patent is not an Aerosol Device, as “Aerosols”, use a propellant (usually an inert gas) and an active ingredient, liquid or particle (medication). This new invention is not an “Aerosol” at all by definition, as it only holds pressurized Air. Nor does this new device make any claims on being used as a medical supply aerosol dispenser. However structurally it would appear to be prima facie distinct, and I would surmise it therefore could be used in such a manner, given that a medical patient may want to have a more private less descript means of dispensing a medication in an emergency situation, in lieu of a more visual and obvious device, as represented in patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,223,744 B1”. That case, for medical purposes and converting this new device to an aerosol device being made, I am not seeking a patent for those purposes. Essential to the field of water sports and water recreation is the need for an emergency air device that can provide the attributes previously defined for a safe, ease of use device, thus encourage usage, to enhance both peace of mind and critical safety. The patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,744 B1” or any other prior art previously discovered does not meet, nor could they meet those criteria, structurally or functionally.    4. Patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,223,744 B1” is also exclusively an electro-mechanical device, using microprocessors, circuit boards, and a battery power supply. This again, is in structural and operational contrast, to the new device in that the new device is not designed to operate as an electro-mechanical device. The new device is designed to operate mechanically without any power source, other than an individual's physical interactions, and thereby eliminates the critical points of failure endemic with electronic devices in a water based environment.
Summarizing the shortcomings of the Prior Art is as follows:    1. Large and cumbersome to wear and use. Thus does not encourage usage, reducing safety and additional loss of life.    2. In some situations, the previously large emergency equipment could snag on rocks or other impediments destroy the equipment and increase the safety risks.    3. Impedes and restricts activities, as the equipment is too large or cumbersome. (Usually either Hand-Held or Umbilically connected from tank to mouth.)    4. Other emergency air devices are not worn as normal everyday apparel, such as a watch-band, as this new apparatus would be, and therefore the prior art can draw unintended or undue attention.    5. Limited effectiveness in promoting and encouraging usage, through type of design and method of use.    6. In some cases, such as with patent “U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,744 B1”, it is not used for, nor intended for use as an Air Supply device, and if it were, the design would not allow for enough air capacity, unless designed in a much larger more bulbous and more cumbersome manner, which would be problematic for safety and ease of use, and causing undue obstruction to movement in the water, along with safety concerns due to its bulbous wrist-top attachment design.    7. Not all emergency air systems or similar prior art are for use in a water based environment.    8. Prior Art to date does not encourage universal usage, which is a design objective of this new device.
It is therefore an object of the invention to promote safety, by encouraging emergency air device usage in all activity aspects that may cause air restriction.
It is another object of the invention to provide a tool that can reduce the level fear and anxiety both in the Emergency Air Device users mind and in the minds of parents and others who may be responsible for a child's or individuals welfare when simply swimming in a pool with friends or engaged in any activity that may create an restricted air environment.
It is another object of the invention to provide an Emergency Air System, which is desired by many, but yet unavailable in the market place.
It is another object of the invention to save lives, by providing air in a simple and seemingly natural, almost automatic manner, when you most need it.